Gun Control discussion

[The guy from the Vale]

Also, by your post @Mother Cocanuts, 1% of all deaths in the US are due to firearms. So, on average, almost every 40th gun owner poses a threat to the people around him or her. That's a scary high number, all things considered. 

[Durckad]

54 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

Nearly 1.3 million people die each year because of car crashes. Does my not supporting a ban or regulation of car purchases mean that I'm okay with those deaths?

More accurate riposte:

Nearly 1.3 million people die each year because of car crashes. Does my not supporting DUI laws, speed limits, traffic safety courses, drivers license requirements, suspensions, and any other laws regulating their uses mean that I'm okay with those deaths?

Now that's more accurate.

[Mother Cocanuts]

9 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

You missed the point of my question. Of course passing laws is subject to a majority decision, but your earlier post made it seem that you think that as long as a majority of gun owners are no threat to their surroundings, gun ownership was absolutely fine. So if 40% of gun owners were homocidal maniacs, should we not legislate on that? What if 10% are? What if 5% are? 1%?

Yes. Because overwhelmingly, the majority of gun owners are not violent; therefore, there shouldn't a regulation, let alone invasive impositions, because of an incredibly small minority have decided to act violently. Not even 1% of gun owners are homicidal maniacs.

9 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

The point, in my perspective, is that for certain kinds of firearms (namely, all those that have large, quickly exchangeable ammunition containers and high bullet replacement rates), their use is only in killing other human beings.

Their use, theguyfromtheVale, is up to the person who carries it.

 

16 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

We should also be asking people who want to own other kinds of firearms (like shotguns, hunting rifles or revolvers) what they need their guns for in order to be allowed to own them. Some borderline cases (semiautomatic pistols) might be permitted for sports purposes, but then their use should be restricted to shooting ranges only. 

The reasons for which a person owns a firearms shouldn't be subjected to your fears and stipulations. It has nothing to do with you.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

29 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

You haven't necessarily conveyed how these regulations are reasonable. And, I've already explained: regulations assume that every gun owner is a likely threat. And the statistics show that most gun owners are not violent offenders.

Auto regulations presume regulation of an activity that can be dangerous is necessary.  Is that improper?

[Mother Cocanuts]

1 minute ago, Durckad said:

More accurate riposte:

Nearly 1.3 million people die each year because of car crashes. Does my not supporting DUI laws, speed limits, traffic safety courses, drivers license requirements, suspensions, and any other laws regulating their uses mean that I'm okay with those deaths?

Now that's more accurate.

No it's not.

 

6 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Also, by your post @Mother Cocanuts, 1% of all deaths in the US are due to firearms. So, on average, almost every 40th gun owner poses a threat to the people around him or her. That's a scary high number, all things considered. 

Wow, your math is off. There 2,626,418 each year. and 33,636 people of fire arm related deaths. That's 1.2%. Now factor in the 1/3 of firearm related deaths which are homicides and it comes out to .43%.

[The guy from the Vale]

You're obfuscating.

4 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

Yes. Because overwhelmingly, the majority of gun owners are not violent; therefore, there shouldn't a regulation, let alone invasive impositions, because of an incredibly small minority have decided to act violently. Not even 1% of gun owners are homicidal maniacs.

Their use, theguyfromtheVale, is up to the person who carries it.

 

The reasons for which a person owns a firearms shouldn't be subjected to your fears and stipulations. It has nothing to do with you.

Around 2% of gun owners in the US turn out to kill someone using their gun. That may be a tiny minority, but it's still far too high a number. And it's higher than your 1%. Yes, that person they turn out to kill is often themselves - but I've been suicidal before, as a result of massive bullying and depression. I didn't succeed back then, and I'm happy about that. With a gun readily available, my chances of "success" would have been higher.

Also, use is not only determined by the user. Or rather, a tool restricts the uses it can have through its design. I can't use a rubber tire to hang a painting, for that I need a nail or screw.

So, we ave to see what morally permissible uses an object has, and how bad the misuse of said object for such purposes would be. And rapid-fire, numerous-ammo guns have little purpose beyond killing things, particularly humans, which is about the worst kind of misuse happening. So there should be extra scrutiny on guns, not minimal one.

 

[Mother Cocanuts]

14 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Auto regulations presume regulation of an activity that can be dangerous is necessary.  Is that improper?

Yes, because half of all deaths in the United States in the United States are car related. But as I said, even those regulations are pretty lax. Do you need background checks? Psychological evaluations? No. All you really need is to be sixteen years or older and know how to park. 

[Durckad]

9 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

No it's not.

Yes it is.

See I can make bad arguments too!

[Ice Queen]

3 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

No it's not.

 

Wow, your math is off. There 2,626,418 each year. and 33,636 people of fire arm related deaths. That's 1.2%. Now factor in the 1/3 of firearm related deaths which are homicides and it comes out to .43%.

You're asking the wrong question. It should be, "How many homicides were committed using a gun?" The answer is around 70%. 

We have no idea how many people actually own guns, never mind how many guns are out there. 

 

[zelticgar]

I like to consider myself libertarian in most matters but I really don’t think I could frame an argument against an amendment to the constitution that limited the mechanical capabilities of firearms that the public can purchase. I also can’t see a strong argument against the requirement of registering and limiting the number of firearms a citizen can purchase. I don’t know enough about guns to know exactly what limits you put on the mechanical capabilities but I would say only allow firearms that have small capacity like revolvers or bolt action rifles. If you limit purchases to firearms with no auto or semi auto capabilities it won’t stop mass shooting but it might at least limit the potential deaths in a mass shooting situation.

 

The tough part would be the policy and process of how you would confiscate existing weapons that don’t meet the criteria. Seems like you would have to set a long limit of time for when you would eventually confiscate weapons that did not meet whatever mechanical restrictions put in place by a new amendment. I know it sucks to have to limit rights due to a small number of bad actors but this shit is getting crazy.

[Mother Cocanuts]

20 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

You're obfuscating.

No, I'm not.

Quote

Around 2% of gun owners in the US turn out to kill someone using their gun. That may be a tiny minority, but it's still far too high a number. And it's higher than your 1%. Yes, that person they turn out to kill is often themselves - but I've been suicidal before, as a result of massive bullying and depression. I didn't succeed back then, and I'm happy about that. With a gun readily available, my chances of "success" would have been higher.

Your math is still off. You're assuming that for each gun related death, there's one corresponding violent offender. Take the Las Vegas shooting. The offender killed 59 people. (I've been depressed too, but luckily for me, arguing online is incredibly therapeutic.)

Quote

Also, use is not only determined by the user. Or rather, a tool restricts the uses it can have through its design. I can't use a rubber tire to hang a painting, for that I need a nail or screw.

This is redundant. I know i can't use a pillow to fly. I know that guns are used to shoot. But what you haven't shown is the reason what's being shot is a person.

Quote

So, we ave to see what morally permissible uses an object has, and how bad the misuse of said object for such purposes would be. And rapid-fire, numerous-ammo guns have little purpose beyond killing things, particularly humans, which is about the worst kind of misuse happening. So there should be extra scrutiny on guns, not minimal one.

 

This isn't about morality. Because if we were discussing morals and ethics, then we'd abide by the constitution, since the description of gun rights is informed by morals and ethics. Gun regulations is all about a reactionary political climate. And I think that since 99% of gun owners don't use their guns in violence towards others, we should give more credit to that, and not to the minority who seek to harm others. Besides, regulations are only good to those who are willing to follow them.

[Mother Cocanuts]

7 minutes ago, Durckad said:

See I can make bad arguments too!

I know.

[Dr. Pepper]

1 hour ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

Nearly 1.3 million people die each year because of car crashes. Does my not supporting a ban or regulation of car purchases mean that I'm okay with those deaths?

Vehicles and their use are heavily regulated.  Owning and operating a vehicle isn't a right enshrined in the constitution.  It's a privilege that one is required to earn.  And yes, if you do not support the regulation of vehicles and the study of vehicle safety, then certianly you are ok with deaths that result from vehicles.  

29 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

So anyone on the other side of the argument is evil.  Got it.

 

 

So I'm afraid that, as far as I'm concerned, you're just going to have to pass that Amendment.  

Yeah, I didn't say that.  But absolutely if someone has decided that dead children is an ok price to pay, you have already proven that you are incapable of being logical on this topic.

Quote

All you need is 3/4 of state legislatures to ratify the proposed amendment.  Problem is, a substantial number of citizens in this country disagree with you.  Moreover, they are unlikely to become any friendlier to your position if you dismiss them as evil idiots incapable of rational discussion.

Yes, I know.  Which is why I almost never engage in these types of discussions.  If you think scores of dead children are ok, you probably can't be reasoned with.

Quote

The whole point of a Constitution is to be binding.  As a whole, I support the Constitution, which means I want the Constitution to be binding.  I want it to mean what its writers meant it to mean, and not what those who want to evade its strictures want it to mean.  I don't want it decided, for instance, that the First Amendment only protects speech the government approves of, because that's how the government chooses to see it in this enlightened modern age.  

The writers meant to disclude women and blacks from all facets of public life.  Do you still want it to mean that?  

The world in which we live is a very different one from the world in which the founders lived.  If the constitution can not be a living document, then it's something that needs to be scrapped and rewritten so as to reflect the realities of our current time.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

44 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

So anyone on the other side of the argument is evil.  Got it.

All you need is 3/4 of state legislatures to ratify the proposed amendment.  Problem is, a substantial number of citizens in this country disagree with you.  Moreover, they are unlikely to become any friendlier to your position if you dismiss them as evil idiots incapable of rational discussion.

The whole point of a Constitution is to be binding.  As a whole, I support the Constitution, which means I want the Constitution to be binding.  I want it to mean what its writers meant it to mean, and not what those who want to evade its strictures want it to mean.  I don't want it decided, for instance, that the First Amendment only protects speech the government approves of, because that's how the government chooses to see it in this enlightened modern age.  

So I'm afraid that, as far as I'm concerned, you're just going to have to pass that Amendment.  

The Constitution, as you well know, was written over 200 years ago by deeply flawed men who could have never imaged today’s society. Most of them would have dropped dead from shock at the sight of a black president. The system of checks and balances they created was and has been a resounding success, for the most part, but the aspects of society that the Constitution address have been deeply flawed. Viewing the document through the lens of how those flawed men viewed it is incredibly ignorant and short sighted.

[TerraPrime]

Really, the discussion whether there are effective solutions should end right after "because Australia" - buying back handguns in a systematic approach followed by a ban on most types of ownerships has dramatically reduced the incidence rate of gun violence. That's rather indisputable. 

 

However. 

 

We, as Americans, shouldn't do that, _unless_ we can change the Second Amendment. This is who we are - ruled by our Constitution. I won't support calls for buy-back or confiscation until we can change the Constitution. As long as the 2A is in effect, we will have mass shootings and massacres of innocent people. We just need to get over ourselves and stop being so shocked every time 59 people die at once. 

[Mother Cocanuts]

10 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Vehicles and their use are heavily regulated. 

How are vehicles and their use heavily regulated?

[Dr. Pepper]

3 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Amendments correcting those issues have already been passed.  Those Amendments are now part of the Constitution, and they are BINDING.  If you still have problems with the Constitution, pass another Amendment.  Like I said.  

No, that's what I said.  I began this discussing by saying we should repeal 2A.  I also noted it will never happen and all the reasons why.  I'm very clear that this is a useless discussion because 2A is such an integral part of the American identity and because there is zero reasoning with shitfucks who are ok with scores of dead children.   

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

16 minutes ago, zelticgar said:

I like to consider myself libertarian in most matters but I really don’t think I could frame an argument against an amendment to the constitution that limited the mechanical capabilities of firearms that the public can purchase. I also can’t see a strong argument against the requirement of registering and limiting the number of firearms a citizen can purchase. I don’t know enough about guns to know exactly what limits you put on the mechanical capabilities but I would say only allow firearms that have small capacity like revolvers or bolt action rifles. If you limit purchases to firearms with no auto or semi auto capabilities it won’t stop mass shooting but it might at least limit the potential deaths in a mass shooting situation.

I’ve always argued that certain handguns, bolt action rifles and traditional shotguns should be legal and purchasable by any citizen, so long as they pass a background check and a psych evaluation and then register the firearms as well as the bullets they buy (to track spikes in volume). If you want anything beyond that, you should have to be a veteran and pass incredibly strict rules and regulations and even then, we should limit what you can buy to anything that cannot be made into an automatic rifle. And everyone who ones a firearm should have to have an annual or biennial psych evaluation. It’s far from a perfect solution, but I think it would make things better.

26 minutes ago, zelticgar said:

The tough part would be the policy and process of how you would confiscate existing weapons that don’t meet the criteria. Seems like you would have to set a long limit of time for when you would eventually confiscate weapons that did not meet whatever mechanical restrictions put in place by a new amendment. I know it sucks to have to limit rights due to a small number of bad actors but this shit is getting crazy.

And that gets to the elephant in the room, in that would it even be possible? They type of people who stock up on the firearms you and I would like to ban overlap heavily with the people who mistrust the government and thus buy firearms to defend themselves from what they view as tyranny. I cannot not imagine a scenario in which they’d willingly give up their firearms, even if you offered them 50 times the value of the firearm in cash.

[TerraPrime]

1 minute ago, Dr. Pepper said:

No, that's what I said.  I began this discussing by saying we should repeal 2A.  I also noted it will never happen and all the reasons why.  I'm very clear that this is a useless discussion because 2A is such an integral part of the American identity and because there is zero reasoning with shitfucks who are ok with scores of dead children.   

Sandy Hook was a turning point for me. As I watched in horror the emergence of the consensus that the deaths of a couple dozens of grade schoolers do not merit an increase in regulating guns, I finally accepted that the 2A is indeed, as you said, an integral and indestructible part of being American. 

[Dr. Pepper]

2 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

How are vehicles and their use heavily regulated?

I have an easier task for you. How about you tell us how they aren't regulated?  Tell us how there are safety standards to which manufacturers must adhere.  Tell us how there aren't any laws on the books that regulate things like speed, seatbelt and car seat usage, even number of passengers, etc.  Tell us how anyone can drive, even toddlers and how there aren't any laws and restrictions on licensing.  Tell us how there aren't regulations on drivers needing to be insured.  And also how all of these regulations aren't enforced through the law with applicable penalties for failure to meet these regulations.  

Or maybe you can just shit in your hand and eat it and then go away.